Piracy, what can we do to fight it?

[GoldShadow]

I don't think you entirely get it, Untrust Us.

 

[BBQTV]

no, he's just trolling

 

[Dre89]

Those companies make enough money to cover their losses.

They only do that because other people are paying for it.

Pirating can't be universalised because if everyone did it there would be nothing to pirate.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Science!
Technology!
Programming!
Intellectual property!
Heart!

By our powers combined, he is... AltF4!

Mic Edit: +Rep Goldie!

/thread .

 

[Palpi]

Being in a band myself I do understand the important of exposure on your bands music, but I also understand the necessity of making a decent living. Though bands do make SOME money from CD sales, it mostly goes to producers/labels. The bulk of money made by the band is made from touring. Downloading music illegally isn't all that harmful to the band, but from the label.

You can download off youtube now so that makes it even easier. I actually don't mind people getting music for free, especially when it is 'underground' music because exposure is all you need. (My bands music is going to be put up on youtube this tuesday so more people can hear it for FREE!)

I understand that downloading music illegally is wrong, but it isn't the end of the world. As for other videos and TV's shows etc that could be much more detrimental.

 

[Untrust Us]

I don't think you entirely get it, Untrust Us.

This topic just brings me mixed feelings that's all. I agree on some parts but I don't agree on others. Can you tell me what i'm not getting?

P.S. I'm not trolling

 

[Palpi]

I can imagine for most people it is something like: "I know it is wrong, but dammit I want to watch the whole season of _________"

lol

 

[1048576]

How about this: plagarism is bad because lying is wrong. Just like if someone asked you how you came up with the idea to make a PB&J and you told them you came up with it all on your own, that would be wrong. But there's nothing wrong with you making a bunch of sandwiches and giving them away.

And all the people who cite lack of profitability as an obstacle to free software, look at Google. Look at Linux. Look at the record profits of the movie industry and the RIAA despite the golden age of torrenting.

 

[Pluvia]

Your neighbor is an idiot for trying to sell something as scarce as air.

Imagine if we did that with ice. People used to go around town with huge blocks of ice and other people would buy a block every day and store it in a special "ice box." Then along comes a refrigerator capable of copying ice. Anyone can buy one and make their own ice. Obviously a world with refrigerators is better than a world without them, even though it puts the block-of-ice people out of a job. Can you imagine if, to this day, you were not allowed to create ice in your fridge and instead had to buy blocks of it from your neighbor's company?

This doesn't counter my last argument.

 

[1048576]

No the ingredients aren't your computer, that's the device you're using for stealing.

It's like say hypothetically you have a machine that can replicate anything. Your next door neighbour spends his time making cars and decides he wants to sell them for money. You notice his cars and think "Wow that looks awesome!" and use your replicator to copy it. Your then start copying loads of them and start sharing them with the world for free.

That's stealing.

What argument? You basically said 'copying and giving away for free is stealing.' I'm describing several scenarios in which most people would agree that such a notion is absurd. If you think your neighbor deserves a profit for selling cars in a world where car replicators exist, then I don't have a counter for that besides "I disagree." Frankly, that's all I need. Of course, you then need to acknowledge that I deserve a profit for selling air.

I don't even have a problem with you selling the replicated cars. Of course, the economic equilibrium price would be zero, assuming you don't have a monopoly on these replicators.

What people should be selling in the Information Age is services related to their main product. Linux has a tech-support line where they can quickly tell you exactly where you're f'ing up the installation. Being experts, they do this better than anyone else, so they make a profit.

Edit: btw have you read the thread yet?

 

[Pluvia]

Selling ice or selling air is nothing like spending your time and effort to create something that very few people can, just for it to be stolen by some randomer who is too cheap to spend a miniscule amount of money on it. Those 2 situations are nothing alike.

And no I haven't read it. But seeing as though you, who has read it, hasn't come up for a good reason as to why you think it's ok to take something you have to pay for for free, then I don't think I'm going to waste my time.

 

[Zodiac]

I havent read the thread yet, Im actually doing that inbetween other things, I'll get through it before my next post, but the majority of what you saying lines up with this qoute

I can imagine for most people it is something like: "I know it is wrong, but dammit I want to watch the whole season of _________"

lol

Except in many case's here the qoute should say this

"I know it is wrong, but dammit I don't want to accept its wrong so i can keep getting everything for free, to that end I'll search for loop holes to justify actions I know are wrong"

Even though theres different moral dilemma with different area's of piracy, such as music (I know the artists get screwed over to no end by their record labels) as opposed to something like games where its not quite like that. But your still taking money away from the company, and in some cases who ever invested in that company for the game they made. both companies can lose money. And if it doesn't sell good at a retail level (But its a popular game to pirate) then people will most likely lose their jobs in the smaller studio that put hard work into making the game.

 

[1048576]

Selling ice or selling air is nothing like spending your time and effort to create something that very few people can, just for it to be stolen by some randomer who is too cheap to spend a miniscule amount of money on it. Those 2 situations are nothing alike.

And no I haven't read it. But seeing as though you, who has read it, hasn't come up for a good reason as to why you think it's ok to take something you have to pay for for free, then I don't think I'm going to waste my time.

See, I don't feel like wasting my time typing refutations that have already been typed. So stop being an ignorant troll.

Vaudeville resisted the phonograph, but common sense prevailed.

You still haven't acknowledged the difference between stealing and copying, even though I've literally posted it like 5 times.

Here's yet another analogy. Suppose I'm really, really dumb, and I painstakingly combine H2 and O2 through electrolosis or something into water. Should I get pissed that you refuse to buy water from me and instead just buy a filter or something. Of course not. Besides, (seriously, ****ing read the thread this is annoying) it's not like software developers are hurting. Most people do give up something for the software they COPY

Oop, left out Zodiac: About potential job losses, you should convince yourself (or study basic economics) that when you add capital to a society, the standard of living increases. Losing jobs in one area usually means creating them in another. For example, given that we have free software, people could spend their time working on commission to develop mods or custom pieces. Since I'm not spending money on a game, I'm spending it on a smoothie or something, which means more smoothie makers and fruit growers and whatnot are put to work.

 

[Untrust Us]

For example, given that we have free software, people could spend their time working on commission to develop mods or custom pieces. Since I'm not spending money on a game, I'm spending it on a smoothie or something, which means more smoothie makers and fruit growers and whatnot are put to work.

if the world thought like this, lots of industries would cease to exist (and vital ones at that).

"what's the point in developing software if i'm not gaining anything except for praise from people. ****it, I need money to survive, not praise unless those same people buy me food and clothes."

 

[Pluvia]

See, I don't feel like wasting my time typing refutations that have already been typed. So stop being an ignorant troll.

Vaudeville resisted the phonograph, but common sense prevailed.

You still haven't acknowledged the difference between stealing and copying, even though I've literally posted it like 5 times.

Here's yet another analogy. Suppose I'm really, really dumb, and I painstakingly combine H2 and O2 through electrolosis or something into water. Should I get pissed that you refuse to buy water from me and instead just buy a filter or something. Of course not. Besides, (seriously, ****ing read the thread this is annoying) it's not like software developers are hurting. Most people do give up something for the software they COPY

You're not refuting my point. It doesn't matter how much you try to group media with things you can get for free with little to no effort, like ice, air or water, it's not the same thing.

For your next metaphor, use an example that involves somebody spending their time and effort to make something that isn't already freely availible (Hint: Not ice, water or air), and then have somebody, who didn't pay for it or contibute at all, come along and copy it with little to no effort and start give it away for free. Then explain to me how that's not stealing.

 

[LLDL]

Piracy is actually part of some developers marketing strategy. The people who pirate the games weren't ever intending on buying the game, so they don't lose a potential candidate. Helps them get more and good reviews for their games, and they still make the same money regardless. They have to factor out the amount of potential pirates when making a game, unless they get zero sales and a million torrent downloads I doubt it will affect their decision to make a new title

 

[Pluvia]

Just like the people who steal clothes in our shop will advertise our shop by wearing their stolen clothes which will make more people come to our shop to buy those very same clothes. Or steal them.

Unfortuantly the stealing part is still there.

 

[1048576]

If you want to read this where it's properly formatted, you know where to look (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=214870
). These examples all fit all your criteria, AFAICT.

Stealing clothes from me: I no longer have the clothes
Stealing software from me: I still have the software

A less dishonest comparison would be buying a plain T-shirt and then restenciling the design yourself.

One: The Phonograph

At the birth of the 20th Century, one of the biggest forms of entertainment in America was Vaudeville. It was an interesting mix of song, dance, animal acts, etc... You might consider it a cross between a concert and a circus.

Vaudeville had a very workable business model. They charged admission. Obviously, in order to enjoy a Vaudeville show, one must be sitting in the stands! And for a very long time this system worked. Many very popular, very creative, and very influential acts came out of Vaudeville.

The a man by the name of Thomas Edison came about and invented a little machine called the Phonograph. It was a machine that allowed the operator to record sound and then later play it back again.

The establishment was now shaken to its core. If you recall, the Vaudeville model revolves around being able to charge admission. With the invention of the Phonograph, people could listen to entertainment in their own homes and never pay the Vaudeville entertainers a dime! Naturally, the entertainment industry fought back against this new disruptive technology and cried out saying that these phonographs would destroy creativity.

One man, John Phillip Souza even made this testimony to Congress in 1906:


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Phillip Souza
These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.

This is an important quote, and we will return to it again later.


Of course the phonograph did not kill creativity, but rather gave birth the the Record Industry. Of course what else should we expect? That Vaudeville remain the predominant form of entertainment for the rest of human history? Of course not, at some point it must come to and end. And so it did.

Two: Hollywood

This story doesn't fit exactly in with the rest in terms of theme, but it's worth telling.

Thomas Edison later went on to creating lots of other important inventions than the phonograph. One of the other things that he did was make patents of lots of new innovative ways to record video. Technically he didn't invent it himself, but it was manufactured in his factories, and marketed in his name: The Vitascope. This was technology that allowed the user to make a movie. They could record video, and then later play sound on top of it.

But one thing that Edison did was keep a very close eye on his patents. Nobody was allowed to use Thomas Edison's patents without his expressed consent, and after giving him a hefty sum of money.

So a group of film Pirates did not like this and thought that they could do much better with Edison's technology but couldn't afford to pay him. So instead they fled to the west coast of the United States and began to make movies illegally using Edison's patents. But America was a very big place in the early 1900's and Edison didn't have much of a way to enforce his legal rights.

These film Pirates went on to settle an entire city based on ripping off Edison's patents and others' ideas to make a profit out of it. The city was named Hollywood. The leader of the film Pirates was named William Fox, who would later found the Fox Film Corporation. (And later, 20th Century Fox)


Three: Pirate Radio

It is now the mid to mid-late 1900's. The established entertainment industry is the Record Industry. They have a workable business model selling plastic disks called Records. They record music and other forms of entertainment onto these disks, an then they sell them out to others.

But then a new technology came along: Radio. Now, technically radio communication was not invented in the mid 1900's, but that's when it became largely commercially viable. Before that time, radios were enormous bulky things that a normal consumer couldn't possibly afford.

At this time, radio stations started popping up. They took music from the record industry and played it over the airwaves.

The Record Industry thought this was just terrible, and that it must be stopped! They called these radio stations "Pirates". And in fact, the term "Pirate Radio" still exists today.

After all, they were "stealing" music created by the Record Industry, playing it over the airwaves, making a profit, and not giving a dime back to the Record Industry. Naturally this disruptive new innovation must be stopped!

But it was not to be that way. Legally speaking, the record industry had every right to shut down these Pirate Radio Stations. But common sense prevailed. A world in which there are radio stations is far preferable to a world in which there is not. The law was amended to allow these stations to exist, and a whole new form of entertainment arose from it.


Four: Cable Television

Music was not the only thing that wound up getting broadcast over the airwaves, but video too. The television was a very popular form of entertainment and of course is still today. But there was a time when in order to watch TV, you had to tune it into a radio signal being broadcast. An entire industry was built around this.

Then a new technology came about: Cable Television. This story is remarkably similar to that of radio stations. People began getting their TV signals not over airwaves, but rather through a wire to their house.

The operators of Cable Television would literally take the signals from radio TV and put it out over the wire (and add their own content, too).

The entertainment industry was furious! Again called these stations "Pirates", and again the term "Pirate Television" remains. The current industry tried desperately to shut down these clearly illegal operators.

But it was not to be. The law was again amended to allow cable television operators to exist. Because a world where cable TV exists is preferable to one where it does not. Even if it means the loss of profits by the establishment. As we all know, cable TV would wind up replacing radio broadcast TV


Five: The VCR

It is now (appropriately) the year 1984, and video entertainment was a boom. The majority of households owned a television and the entertainment industry profited greatly by being able to serve content to these boxes.

But then a new invention came around. Sony Corporation had just spent a lot of money developing the Betamax. For those of not alive in 1984 (I wasn't!) the Betamax was the first form of the VHS tape. It's essentially the same thing, but VHS would later take over, and then be subsequently replaced by DVDs.

What the VCR allowed someone to do was to record video off of a television and later watch it at their own discretion whenever they wanted. Why, this was heresy to the entertainment industry! Someone is trying to sell a device whose sole purpose is to make copies of copyrighted content?!

The then Chairman of the MPAA, Jack Valenti (The Motion Picture Association of America) even made this statement to congress in 1982:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Valenti
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

And this went to court in the very famous "Sony Betamax" supreme court decision. Universal Studios and Walt Disney Corporation sued the Sony Corporation for selling the Betamax.

But yet again, common sense prevailed. Not only did the VCR not destroy the American film industry, but it sparked an entirely new industry. Billions of dollars were later made by buying and selling VHS tapes. Creativity flourished, and the "rights" of the copyright holders were correctly and justly ignored.


Six: The United States of America

I saved the best for last. Chronologically, this should go first. But it's most important.

The United States of America was founded as a Pirate nation. During the Industrial revolution, America was able to maintain its progress as much as it did by completely and blatantly ignoring the copyrights and patents of other countries. It was official US policy just to take and "rip off" any patents being used in Europe at the time. That way America could freely industrialize.

This, of course, upset Europe very much. Britain tried in vain to prevent the US from continuing this practice, by passing legislature such as the Iron Act of 1750.

Failing to further prevent America from infringing on their patents and copyrights, European began to call Americans "Jankes", a Dutch phrase meaning "Pirate". Americans would later take this name and mispronounce it into "Yankee".

That's right, the word "Yankee" itself means "Pirate".


Today

So today history again repeats itself. A new technology has risen which completely disrupts the current establishment. This technology is Bit Torrent over the Internet. It has revolutionized the way distribution is done. It is democratized, decentralized, and efficient. But the most important aspect of Bit Torrent is the mechanics of distribution.

Bit Torrent is unique in the respect that it reverses the dynamics of scarcity. Typically, the more demand there is for something, the harder it is to get. Even pure information can be scarce in this respect. For example, if 10 million people all tried to log into the Smashboards at once, the servers would crash. The words on this very page right now are distributed from a single source, and that source can only handle so much weight.

What Bit Torrent does is reverse this. The more demand there is for something, the easier it is to get it. Scarcity for bits has thusly been eliminated. The only reason one cannot obtain a piece of data on the Internet over Bit Torrent is because it is so unpopular as to not have anyone sharing it.


But this disrupts the current entertainment industry. They cry foul and label us as "Pirates"! They say that this new Piracy is killing creativity, and that if left unchecked will destroy entertainment completely!



Opportunity and Innovation

But what they don't see is opportunity. It is true that the era of the DVD and the CD is over. What we are seeing is transition into a completely new form of business. It may very well be the case that we see a return to Vaudeville, in a way. We are seeing not just passive media, but Social Media.

You see, one of the important differences between the Vaudeville star and the recording industry star was personal interaction with the fan. In order to be successful on stage, one must be charismatic. In order to be successful on records, you need to sound very well.

Interaction and charisma is already starting to see a rebirth in music and film through places like MySpace.com. Say what you will about the musicians present there, but there is a renaissance of artists popping up through the website. They accomplish this not purely by "sounding good" but by being friends with their fans. Connecting with them through more than just the music.

We see this with artists like Radiohead, Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails), and a whole host of others. What they do is accumulate fans who love them first, and their music second. I personally donate to both of those artists in the form of purchases and other means.

Just as some Vaudeville stars were not able to make the transition to records, some current artists will not be able to transition to the new form of media. This is not, however, the same thing as saying that creativity itself suffers. Not unless you think creativity also suffered from the invention of the phonograph, or the radio, or cable TV, or the VCR.


A Market Signal

One of the biggest things that Piracy is, is a market signal. Piracy is the consumers telling the industry that they need to do better. That the way they have been doing business for the last several decades is no longer sufficient.

For example, there is a clear demand for what many call "The Celestial Jukebox". This mythical device would be as small, trendy, available, and as accessible as an iPod. It would allow the owner to listen to any recorded audio work in history at the touch of a button. And it would allow the owner to donate a small sum of money at their discretion to the artist of the works they just listened to.

This device needn't be a myth, however. It is perfectly possible to make one! What is preventing the Celestial Jukebox from existing is not a problem of engineering, but rather a legal one. Copyright law simply does not allow such a thing to exist.

But a fruitful and workable economy can clearly be seen to be available from the Celestial Jukebox. Artists (especially of the type described above) will easily be able to make lots of money by accumulating fans over the device.

The problem is not that artists won't get paid, no. The problem is that the current established record industry plays no part in that future. The multi-billion dollar industry would be made almost completely obsolete by such a device. And so they fight to ensure that it never exists. Piracy is the fight to ensure that it does.


What Piracy is not

What Piracy is NOT is stealing. This claim that Piracy equates to theft is nothing more than a petty attempt to push aside everything above and simplify this entire topic to a single word.

Stealing is wrong. That much is obvious. Stealing is wrong because it deprives the original owner of something which they would have otherwise possessed. If you went onto my driveway and stole my car, that would be wrong. I would no longer have a car because of it! And that would be harmful to me.

But copying is not stealing. If you went into my driveway and made a copy of my car, I would be in no way damaged. In fact, if such a device existed that would allow copies of cars to be made, I would proudly place my car in my driveway for all to see and copy it! To deny someone something of value when it costs nothing to you is just plain rude. I think we all learned that lesson in Kindergarten, that it is a good thing to share.

 

[Lythium]

Speaking of copying, you might want to credit Alt for writing that.

Just saying.

 

[1048576]

Haha true, editing now.

 

[Pluvia]

Read that. I like the fact that no where does it mention that tv and radio still pay these artists to play their songs. Instead, in this article, it's just called "common sense". Hmmm.

Ironically at the end he uses a similar metaphor that I used, one about cars and a copying machine, the main difference is in his metaphor he didn't spend his time and effort to make the car, he just owned it, which completely and utterly misses the point of the entire argument.

And I've read all the rest of the information before.

Anyway, you still haven't come up with a reason as to why it's ok to steal something that someone spent their time and effort creating and was planning to sell/selling, whereas you didn't contribute at all, and give it away for free without their permission.

 

[1048576]

Because increasing the standard of living by adding capital to the economy is good...?

I thought that was kind of a shared assumption. I didn't realize it needed explanation. Okay, for as long as society has existed, our goal has been to acheive happiness. This is why sex is so pleasureable. It's an evolution mechanism. We live in a world of limited resources and unlimited wants....

I'd continue, but I gtg. more later if its necessary.

Wait, is your primary issue with selling someone else's idea that they expelled effort in coming up with?

 

[Pluvia]

Adding capital?

And I don't understand what the second paragraph has to do with anything. Isn't it better to achieve happiness for the whole of society rather than being selfish?

 

[UberMario]

I remember reading that post, I do not agree what it says about torrents and whatnot though, since THERE IS NO WAY for the original developers to profit from it, it's completely free [and illegal] and we'll not be able to find a profitable future involving the use of torrents because once a torrent becomes available for paid download by the producer, another user could instantly download it and post it as another torrent for free somewhere else. It simply won't work.

Besides, the logic behind "oh, they made it and I made something nearly identical, but it's fair since it's not stealing and I made it" SHOULD NOT apply to movies and video games BECAUSE you are still stealing the information on the roms, discs, etc. and claiming it as your own/distrubuting another's work, in theory capable of causing the developers to lose millions of dollars. If the developers can't make enough money to even cover the minimum of their work that cost millions to develop, the developers will quit and we will no longer have video games or movies.

However, there is, in theory, a way that we can have movies and [to a lesser extent] video games for "free" over the internet that is currently being developed, it's called Youtube. The fact that ads can be put up on the bottom of the screen is a way for the developers to profit (though there will have to be way more of them to balance it for movies, I think [but am unsure] that the ads would give nearly the same profit to music developers as an iTunes/MP3 download for every 1-10 views, so that would probably explain why we haven't seen songs torn off YT left-and-right as much as movies). If Youtube could figure out how to encode their videos to NOT be downloadable, I see this as a high possibility.

How would that work for video games? I'm sure we'll see a day when an accepeted site that hosts games (similar to GameTap) that can rely solely on advertisements, and other tactics to earn money. (Or more reasonable yet, make the site force you to pay for 3-D games or ones that have been developed within the last fifteen years (including 2D) and make the others "public domain", where they're playable on the site, but the only thing downloaded is the save file (or that could be a registering thing where they keep your info on the site) and there are ads galore before you enter the game. (Like three or four))

However, until either of those two things become the norm, I'm against piracy (and technically still will be even if the above happens, since it won't be piracy in a sense). The meaning of "piracy" when it comes to virtual items is truly taking the information and using it unlawfully, it's not a ripoff/parody, it's a complete exact replica of the original and that is why it's wrong.

Would that mean games like the Great Giana sisters are acceptable since they aren't identical to what they're imitating? No, because if you look at the graphics and gameplay, half of them look like very minor edits of the original graphics and it's clearly not their idea, I mean look at this:

http://unsugarcoated.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/giana-sisters-screenshot.gif

This is a clear case of a game trying to swipe the identity of another, the graphics are the same the enemies are the same, same gameplay, two protagonists, and one is even named Maria. Games like these should not be allowed to exist because this is not just a case of similar ideas, it's a complete and deliberate attempt to compete against another company with a near identical product that isn't really there's to begin with. Other games in similar scenarios, such as Baby Pac-Man, fall under this same category of stealing the identity of another game series and marketing it as their own, which is wrong. Ironically, the Giana Sisters eventually came back on the Nintendo DS, it still had several aspects
that were taken from SMB, but it had it's "own identity" now, with different things changed to make it a little more unique.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ds/955317-giana-sisters-ds/images/screen-7

 

[IAmBlu3]

i download to sample. i'm tired of buying albums that only have one good song, but if i like the album or at least 5 to 6 songs on it, i'll buy it.

 

[Untrust Us]

i download to sample. i'm tired of buying albums that only have one good song, but if i like the album or at least 5 to 6 songs on it, i'll buy it.

there's a great website called last.fm and have you heard of pandora?

Actually, last I checked, people upload entire albums on youtube.

 

[Pikaville]

When your given a thing such as the internet,where in general information is free,why would you bother paying for it?

I mean,do you really feel that you have some sort or moral obligation to the creators or something you want?

Is it really any different to going over to your friends house and listening to an album they bought?Or something similar like playing some new video game.

No.Your friend may have paid for it.But you haven't and still get to experience it without paying.I mean,he could go" no way man I paid for this so only I get to listen to it,buy your own one or give me 5 dollars"

It's only because people care about money too much,that's what makes free information a problem.

You make something great and introduce it to the world,if anything tons and tons of people wanting/appreciating/needing it should be enough satisfaction,then if a few people are willing to pay for it then that's great.

A lot of people create stuff that is practically used for free and never make tons of money from it.

If more people were willing to share anything and everything we possibly could.Not only do I think the world would be a better place,but we'd probably create things we could probably never imagine.

I'm just a dreamer though,unfortunately this is reality and it kinda sucks sometimes.

 

[Pluvia]

The problem with that though Aidan is that if you wanted to listen to your friends album whenever you wanted you'd have to buy your own one. It's like how much you like MW2, you could get a loan of it from your friends, but you wouldn't be able to keep it.

And, unfortunately, tons of people appreciating your product does not put food on the table.

 

[Pikaville]

The problem with that though Aidan is that if you wanted to listen to your friends album whenever you wanted you'd have to buy your own one. It's like how much you like MW2, you could get a loan of it from your friends, but you wouldn't be able to keep it.

And, unfortunately, tons of people appreciating your product does not put food on the table.

That's why I said "unfortunately this is reality" at the end of my post.

Although the idea of everyone functioning like that is entirely plausible.Why couldn't it work like that?

 

[Pluvia]

Capitalism.

 

[Mith_]

speaking of pirating i need to go get that new bobby ray album

 

[Seed of Sorrow]

If you want to read this where it's properly formatted, you know where to look (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=214870
). These examples all fit all..........to share.

for the sake of it, Tl,dr

Being in a band myself I do understand the important of exposure on your bands music, but I also understand the necessity of making a decent living. Though bands do make SOME money from CD sales, it mostly goes to producers/labels. The bulk of money made by the band is made from touring. Downloading music illegally isn't all that harmful to the band, but from the label.

You can download off youtube now so that makes it even easier. I actually don't mind people getting music for free, especially when it is 'underground' music because exposure is all you need. (My bands music is going to be put up on youtube this tuesday so more people can hear it for FREE!)

I understand that downloading music illegally is wrong, but it isn't the end of the world. As for other videos and TV's shows etc that could be much more detrimental.

Wow, I like you, be my friend?

 

[UberMario]

When your given a thing such as the internet,where in general information is free,why would you bother paying for it?

Because you're supposed to and as a whole it gives the companies an incentive to make more of what you want?

I mean,do you really feel that you have some sort or moral obligation to the creators or something you want?

Yes. They slaved for days and months and millions of dollars not to have someone get it for free.

Is it really any different to going over to your friends house and listening to an album they bought?Or something similar like playing some new video game.

Yes, because they paid for it, and it isn't copying.

No.Your friend may have paid for it.But you haven't and still get to experience it without paying.I mean,he could go" no way man I paid for this so only I get to listen to it,buy your own one or give me 5 dollars"

That logic really doesn't make much sense, you pay for the right to be able to use the song whenever you want, including for others (though not for a profit), it's still the same song from the same "origin", a disc that was paid for (or iTune/mp3 download).

It's only because people care about money too much,that's what makes free information a problem.

While plenty of corperations are greedy, without money we'd be selfish, lazy, thieving . . . . .well, I 'll just say people that do not do work because there is no benefit to ourselves that can keep the work sustainable, because other people would just take the profits and use them for themselves.

You make something great and introduce it to the world,if anything tons and tons of people wanting/appreciating/needing it should be enough satisfaction,then if a few people are willing to pay for it then that's great.

Not if you need to put food on the table, or need money to make another game/song/whatever to make your fans happy.

A lot of people create stuff that is practically used for free and never make tons of money from it.

Most things that are free are of much lower quality than what you pay for. Reason? No incentive to make it a priority, they'll put life ahead of the project because they need to earn money somehow. Paying for something makes it a higher priority because the creators earn money from doing a good job and essentially make it their main work place rather than going to, say, a supermarket. The better the job, the more money they earn, and a cycle continues (or should continue, some companies unfortunately become corrupt, but those don't usually last too long, with a few big exceptions)

If more people were willing to share anything and everything we possibly could.Not only do I think the world would be a better place,but we'd probably create things we could probably never imagine.

While true, people still need to be able to make money, so the use of another person's work as a direct stepping stone should require royalties, unfortunately most companies won't even go that far and keep it to themselves, but that's different than pirating being acceptable. (In the sense of direct copying, not using a design and making a "replica" with your own touches, songs don't count because you're still copying the lyrics/melody/etc even if you change a few things, so that's still direct)

I'm just a dreamer though,unfortunately this is reality and it kinda sucks sometimes.

Are people selfish? Yes.

Is it bad? That depends on what they are being selfish about.

 

[Jon Farron]

I tend to think of it as giving... I know totally wrong D: But, yeah the person who put it up on said website bought it and shared it with the world. It's their property once it's in their hands and can do whatever they want with it. (well it should be that way....) Oh and like the older classic games such as EarthBound, nobody wants to go and buy a cartridge for $80+ dollars and an SNES only to play that game when there are emulators out there to play it with.
As for music.... Like some other guy said I usually don't download the entire album usually just a 4 or 5 of them... Well I don't know everyone loves free stuff and like I said people can do what they want with it even if it means putting it on the internet for other people that may not want to spend their hard earned money on something stupid like entertainment. Especially if they have a low income.

 

[UberMario]

Well the irony about Earthbound is that they used real songs and references that they weren't supposed to, which is why they aren't able to legally release it again, which causes people to use it when they aren't supposed to. I don't understand why they just don't make new songs that sound similar in order to get it on safer grounds, but they don't.

 

[Jon Farron]

Well the irony about Earthbound is that they used real songs and references that they weren't supposed to, which is why they aren't able to legally release it again, which causes people to use it when they aren't supposed to. I don't understand why they just don't make new songs that sound similar in order to get it on safer grounds, but they don't.

I know right!

 

[Crimson King]

Want to fight piracy? Kill the Internet. Until then, it will alway exist.

Want to protect an idea that you originated is an innate thing. The idea would not exist without you, but people like to marginalize individual accomplishments and take ideas.

I have no problem with the concept of idea sharing. I have a problem with people feeling entitled to do so.

I'll post more at home.

 

[Crimson King]

Also, FYI, do not discuss methods of finding pirating channels. I'm not extremely comfortable with the talk here, but I'll let it go for now. Just rememer:

6. Respect Copyright
Posts that violate or incite others to violate the law are not allowed. This includes (but is not limited to) requesting, providing, or instructing how to find, create, or use illegal copies of copyrighted software and related applications (including ROMs).

Be respectful of copyright law in your posts. Reproducing substantive portions of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

* Copyright Violation - 3 points, 14 days

 

[Pluvia]

It might always exist CK but it will eventually be much, much harder to do. Like how there's a new law starting that makes it if you repeatedly download illegally and ignore warnings over here (UK) your internet connection will be slowed dramatically by your service provider.

In 20 years time this will probably be the norm everywhere.

 

[Charmander]

there's a new law starting that makes it if you repeatedly download illegally and ignore warnings over here (UK) your internet connection will be slowed dramatically by your service provider.

If your caught pirating once in the US, its a fine and/or jail
thats why I dont pirate...